Law firm sues Mutasa, Mliswa, Gumbo

A LOCAL law firm, Nyakutombwa, Mugabe Legal Counsel has filed a chamber application at the High Court seeking a default judgment against former Zanu PF heavy weights, Didymus Noel Mutasa, Rugare Eleck Ngidhi Gumbo and newly elected Norton MP, Temba Peter Mliswa, with a view to recover a combined $24 929 in legal fees.

The law firm initially issued summons against the trio in September this year but the latter did not respond to the lawsuit, prompting the lawyers to file an application for default judgment on October 21.

However, on Wednesday this week Mutasa, Mliswa and Gumbo entered an appearance to defend the default judgment, while the Registrar of the High Court also raised a query which the lawyers are expected to attend to within 30 days.

The trio were sometime in 2015 expelled from Zanu PF following allegations of attempting to remove President Robert Mugabe from power, while allegedly acting in cahoots with former Vice-President Joice Mujuru.

After being kicked out of Zanu PF, they approached the law firm and engaged it for the provision of several legal services related to their expulsion from the party. The services included challenging expulsion both in the High Court as well as the Constitutional Court (ConCourt)

"The services included challenging the aforesaid expulsion and seeking the enforcement of certain constitutional rights. The defendants (Mutasa, Mliswa and Gumbo) would be charged for all opted services rendered and for all attendances in terms of the Law Society of Zimbabwe General Tariff of 2011," the lawyers said in their declaration.

"No guarantee of success was given nor was failure of same a basis for non-settlement of due fees. The services were provided diligently and to the best of the plaintiff's abilities. The plaintiff obtained limited success in the execution of the mandate given by the defendants."

However, the legal firm said when the trio realised their actions were not at all successful they allegedly became evasive and despite numerous meetings and demands for settlement of fees, payment was never done.

"Despite demand, the defendants have failed, refused or neglected to make payments," they said, urging the court to grant the default judgment.